ChatterBank1 min ago
U.k. Ability To Monitor Data Declared Illegal By European Court
65 Answers
On the day that Germany's ability to protect their people from Terror is exposed as woeful, our laws have been overruled by the EU Parliament. What a travesty.
https:/
We have the best intelligence services in the world and they are being undermined by the EU , yet again. Another reason for leaving the EU. They couldn't have picked a worse day to do this. I hope we can keep appealing this until we actually leave this woeful Bloc. Or maybe we can just ignore it like other EU countries do when it suits them.
https:/
We have the best intelligence services in the world and they are being undermined by the EU , yet again. Another reason for leaving the EU. They couldn't have picked a worse day to do this. I hope we can keep appealing this until we actually leave this woeful Bloc. Or maybe we can just ignore it like other EU countries do when it suits them.
Answers
I haven't read all of this but as far as the original point goes (UK action declared illegal) once again the same principle applies. This should be a matter for the UK Parliament and not a foreign court.
10:32 Thu 22nd Dec 2016
So let's hope David Davis will see things in a different light in view of what's happening in EU countries. Retaining data for a year does not mean people in the Intelligence services are sat listening to all our conversations, reading or texts and emails. It means they can go back and cross reference suspects to build up a bigger picture. This is crucial and as I said, we have the best Intelligence Service in the World.
I'm not sure it is necessarily stupidity unless you have far more knowledge than they do, but you could always write to them pointing out the logical, legal or other errors they may have made. I have not read the article but I assume they are just trying to balance the need for monitoring for security purposes with personal freedoms to go about our lawful business without excessive amounts of information being available for possible misuse by security forces or by others who could access data unlawfully perhaps
FF believe me, the EU will want our expertise much more than we want theirs. This Berln suspect was a failed asylum seeker on the police terror watchlist who should have already been deported. He was not even monitored. Believe me it would not happen here. When his picture first came out most of his face was blacked out. What's all that about!
Linda, last night’s London Evening Standard carried a picture of him with half his face obscured. I wondered what that was all about too. Today’s edition carries a recognisable picture.
http://
http://
Fairly sure you've missed out a "don't" in that old adage, Linda...
But anyway. The broader point is what counts as "nothing to hide" anyway? Can any of us ever truly say that? Minor illegal activities, or perhaps legal but potentially career-destroying secrets, all would be laid bare. Perhaps even there are things that you would very much rather had stayed hidden, but forgot about until they were revealed.
As to Naomi's "extraordinary times", granted that can feel true and it may only be intended to be temporary, but there aren't exactly encouraging precedents for that either. Governments tend to be rather less keen on rescinding powers they hold, than they are on giving themselves new ones, so it's naive in the extreme to assume that this set of powers would vanish ten years or so down the line when the threat is judged to have disappeared (or at least reduced sufficiently).
At any rate, while I'm not saying I actually fear a slippery slope to totalitarian state control or something like that, in practice it's better to preserve freedoms and privacy than it is to sacrifice it. For sure, we should fight our enemies to the best of our abilities -- thing is, that our abilities are also constrained by what we're fighting to protect.
But anyway. The broader point is what counts as "nothing to hide" anyway? Can any of us ever truly say that? Minor illegal activities, or perhaps legal but potentially career-destroying secrets, all would be laid bare. Perhaps even there are things that you would very much rather had stayed hidden, but forgot about until they were revealed.
As to Naomi's "extraordinary times", granted that can feel true and it may only be intended to be temporary, but there aren't exactly encouraging precedents for that either. Governments tend to be rather less keen on rescinding powers they hold, than they are on giving themselves new ones, so it's naive in the extreme to assume that this set of powers would vanish ten years or so down the line when the threat is judged to have disappeared (or at least reduced sufficiently).
At any rate, while I'm not saying I actually fear a slippery slope to totalitarian state control or something like that, in practice it's better to preserve freedoms and privacy than it is to sacrifice it. For sure, we should fight our enemies to the best of our abilities -- thing is, that our abilities are also constrained by what we're fighting to protect.
Obviously the two things you talk about are unconnected.
The fiasco in Germany was not because the security isn't there, it was because someone didn't do their job properly. The suspect was supposed to be being watched, but wasn't.
The decision that keeping you or mine's internet history for a year being a breach of our privacy is a totally different matter. For a start, you are not a terrorist. And our data is available to a wide number of people unconnected with anti-terrorism agencies. For example, the Welsh Ambulance Service can inspect your internet usage for some unknown reason. It has been called the snoopers charter for good reason.
The fiasco in Germany was not because the security isn't there, it was because someone didn't do their job properly. The suspect was supposed to be being watched, but wasn't.
The decision that keeping you or mine's internet history for a year being a breach of our privacy is a totally different matter. For a start, you are not a terrorist. And our data is available to a wide number of people unconnected with anti-terrorism agencies. For example, the Welsh Ambulance Service can inspect your internet usage for some unknown reason. It has been called the snoopers charter for good reason.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.